Posted
by
Soulskill
on Monday March 26, 2012 @02:58PM
from the waving-the-white-flag dept.

Fluffeh writes "This story has gone from funny to sad. Following copyright-troll Righthaven's recent whipping by a judge, it now appears the company has just given up altogether. CEO Steve Gibson is working at another job (while being investigated by the Nevada Bar) and main lawyer Shawn Mangano apparently has completely stopped responding to all attempts to contact him, even by the court. All this has resulted in the key appeals in its cases to be dismissed 'for lack of prosecution.' Last Thursday it also had a key case closed, with prejudice, driving another nail in its already buried coffin."

It's like in Moby Dick, the coffin was built for someone, then that someone didn't die, then it was nailed shut and used as a bouy, then it was dragged down to the depths without any human intervention, then ironically the person did die when the coffin would have saved them, but then without any human intervention it erupted back to the surface, saved someone else's life, and then... well, was probably discarded again, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, the coffin which already was buried was exhumed, had one additional useless nail driven in, and - well, it's something to do with hamburgers or cars I'm sure.

Well, they have certainly been electronic bullies far longer than Righthaven was, so perhaps their eventual down fall will be even more spectacular. We can only hope!
Come to think of it, they have been amazingly quiet since Righthaven got taken to the judicial woodshed.

IANAL, but is there some way to compel them to show up? Not to force them to prosecute their claims, but rather to compel them to answer for their frivolous lawsuits, for example?

I mean, lodging a lawsuit against someone causes emotional harm and waste of time and money if they did it with malice. Can there be restitution with any of their cases for the injured party? Although I know it may be very hard to prove...

I'm not familiar with common law, but in continental law, you may be taken in by the police if you fail to answer your summons for a trial, or even taken in the night before, and held at the precinct overnight, then led forward handcuffed by an officer. The court has to order this specifically, and I've only seen this used in case of private persons, so I'm not sure it could apply in case of a corporation (after all, the legal persona applies to the whole corporation, who is there to summon by force in this

When the plaintiff doesn't show up, one of three things can happen:1. The defendant moves for dismissal and wins2. The defendant can ask for a continuance* so that the plaintiff can show up3. The Judge gets angry and orders a arrest warrant or fine for contempt upon the plaintiff.

When the defendant doesn't show up, see #3

*unless you were trying to get sued and set a precedent, this never happens

IANAL, but is there some way to compel them to show up? Not to force them to prosecute their claims, but rather to compel them to answer for their frivolous lawsuits, for example?

Yes, the defendant can file a counterclaim. If they still don't show up, the defendant wins, automatically. Then, there's the little detail of collecting on the judgement, but take it one step at a time...

In most states, if somebody doesn't pay a judgement, then the plaintiff can do things like have the sherriff show up at their office and take anything of value up to the amount of the judgement. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the individuals have already collected very handsome salaries and let the company go into bankruptcy so the actual money is hidden behind the corporate veil.

Over the past few years, we've heard plenty of horror stories about bungled foreclosures. The one of Warren and Maureen Nyerges, from the Naples, Fla. area, is just as bad. In 2009, they bought a home with cash, yet in 2010 Bank of America tried to foreclose on them. It took two months of phone calls and eventually court intervention to clear up the misunderstanding.

In December, a judge ordered the bank to pay the couple $2,500 in attorney fees. But months went by and the bank never cut a check. So, the Naples Daily News reports, Nyerges hired a lawyer, who pursued a levy, and this past Friday the showdown was on: The Nyergeses showed up to a local branch of Bank of America with the sheriff, the media and some movers with a truck:

"I'm either leaving the building with a whole bunch of furniture, or a check or cash or something," the attorney, Todd Allen, vowed.

Marvellous, except for them being given an hour (on the taxpayers' clock) to cut a check. The time to do that was months previously: private citizens aren't given a grace period once the truck shows up.

If the plaintiff doesn't show up, the defendant does not even necessarily have to file a counterclaim to get a judgment in their favor. If the case is abandoned for lack of prosecution, the defendant can generally get a judgment for at least their costs and, depending on the type of case, for their attorneys' fees.

With a judgment in their favor, the defendant could then call the plaintiff (now judgment debtor) in for a debtor's exam. If the debtor fails to appear, that's contempt of court and generally a warrant for the debtor's arrest is issued.

With all Righthaven did, I wonder if this will simply be the end to the lawsuits. If so, this would be a really bad thing. When all is said and done, if the courts just shut down the lawsuits now, the folks behind Righthaven will have been able to sue a bunch of people and then walk away without any penalties. Sure, Righthaven will be shuttered, but there are indications that they shuttled assets elsewhere first to avoid paying debts. If the courts allow this, what's to stop any company from forming a shell company (to protect the parent), conducting a series of lawsuits, and simply dissolving the shell if things go badly? The downside here seems low and the upside (if you are successful in forcing people to settle) seems high. There needs to be a full investigation here with appropriate charges filed/fines issued to make sure other companies get the message that this is unacceptable.

piercing the corporate veil applies to shareholders who normally have limited liability. The actors within a corporation are never shielded from any illegal activity they do themselves on behalf of a corporation. I'm not sure why so many people get this confused.

According to wikiedia Righthaven owes one gentleman (a blogger) $34,000 in a court case where they lost. It would be a shame if he spent all that money defending himself, but then never sees any of it. Yet another reason I'm opposed to limited-liability corporations.

I used to actually know a debt collector named Guido. We used to work at the same company. It used to crack me up every time I get to work his name into a call. Comedy gold... (Ok, I admit it, I'm easily amused.)

Believe me, he can be very convincing. He will keep digging until you spit out 34 teeth. One of them looked a bit like a chip from a rib and one looked funnily small like a child's milk tooth, but hey, I'm no monster, I don't dictate where you take your teeth from.

What seems like beating a dead horse is necessary in this case. You must continue to beat the horse even after the horse is long dead. It's like a course of antibiotics, it may seem like the infection is gone but if you stop too soon a resistant strain might come back.

I don't. I don't have the millions of dollars to pay a high end legal team that a corporation might be able to afford, so "loser pays" would boil down to "I have no rights against rich entities". No thanks.

How about you pay twice your own lawyer's cost. Once to your lawyer, once to the winner's?

If you win against a corporation who put a million dollar dream team together your lawyer just made bank. If you lose then the corporation still doesn't realize the rewards necessary to afford the dream team. I feel like it wouldn't be worse than what we have now and would actually encourage more lawyers to act pro-bono for the poor, at least in cases where they may win.

I don't. I don't have the millions of dollars to pay a high end legal team that a corporation might be able to afford, so "loser pays" would boil down to "I have no rights against rich entities". No thanks.

You don't pay their actual costs, you pay reasonable costs. What the judges determines to be reasonable costs for that kind of legal action. If the defendant paid for top dollar lawyers, or a team of lawyers, they'll have to pay the difference themselves.

I don't. I don't have the millions of dollars to pay a high end legal team that a corporation might be able to afford, so "loser pays" would boil down to "I have no rights against rich entities". No thanks.

It doesn't work like that. The repayment of costs by the losing side is subject to a check against whether it is equitable and reasonable, and it is the judge that makes that determination. The legal principle of equitability is why costs are normally awarded (basically, why should you have to pay if you've not done anything wrong?). The legal principle of reasonableness strongly encourages the two sides to the case to bring equivalent legal firepower; yes, bring too little and you lose, but bring too much

People do it all the time.They feel the need to stick it to the man, they believe in a get rich scheme or both. They go out full cock until until reality hits them like a train. They loose everything.I have seen a case where a Guy who was running a business sold it to an other company just as long as he would stay the manager. So they kept him, during this time he got Pissed off because he had to deal with bosses who were telling him to do things he didn't want to do (BTW he sold his company because he co

They sometimes seem to be just attracted to crime, rather than turning to it as a last resort or because it makes so much money. A great example is a guy here locally who would break in to newspaper dispensers to steal the money. Well this was fairly hard work, they are built nice n' sturdy and this guy didn't have some tool to bust them open real fast. Also it required a good bit of walking around to get to them, there aren't all that many and they aren't densely packed. Of course the biggest thing is the

That seems to happen a lot. *trynottomentionwallstreet* *trynottomentionwallstreet*

The worrying thing is that it basically legitimizes patent trolling in that those wanting to organize a patent troll company now have a template to work from where they know they have a good chance of sponging lots of money and then escaping cleanly. Sure, the ending needs a little work, but most of the template is now proven solid.

Victim that lost $50,000 can work through the courts, and when the courts find Righthaven has zero cash and can't return the money, shoot former CEO in head. (It's Vegas. People disappear all the time.)

I am finally glad that this sue for profit scheme has completely unraveled. This should put some waves of fear into the likes of RIAA and MPAA to make certain they have absolutely valid claims before they try to strong arm people. I love it! This is so funny as to be better than Andrew Dice Clay!

* Just asking for clarification, photo's not the same guy I remember (and to cover "the" Steve Gibson (I say "THE" because he's well-known & this can 'trash' HIS good name)).

APK

P.S.=> I hope not! I state that mainly because despite the b.s. many others tried to spread about the guy over time? He's pretty damned good (his early work on disk checkers showed me that from the DOS days, a

Pity they didn't name it Rightcraven -- that would have been much more appropriate considering that they have turned tale and crawled away. What a pathetic waste of resources this whole farce was, not to mention torturing people who did not infringe a single copyright. I agree that this must not go unpunished. The lawyers should at least be brought before the bar, even if the corporate bankruptcy shields them from paying what they owe.